“So, what can be done about this Rump government? Are there provisions in our constitution to declare our pm incompetent? Have him investigated for treason? Force parliament to sit?”

This series of questions arrived in an email. Over the last few months, I have heard or read variations on these thoughts as questions or statements by Canadians with differing measures of influence over others. Here are some of my thoughts in response.

What can we do about Canada’s Rump Parliament?

As mentioned in a previous blog, the term “Rump Parliament” arose out of the 1648 incident in which English elites seized control of their Parliament. They wanted neither to concern themselves with the interests and interventions of common people nor to be constrained from spending freely or taxing as they saw fit. Once in control, the opposition was barred from exercising Parliamentary functions. The goal then became holding on to political power for as long as possible, without accountability for its use.

When Canada’s federal Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties voted on April 20 to suspend the House of Commons until May 25 in favour of a special committee on Covid-19, opposition parties were stripped of most of their Parliamentary powers. One vital power was retained. The constitutional authority they refused to turn over to the government in the special sitting of the House held March 24 to pass the initial Covid-19 emergency expenditures. That day, the opposition parties denied the Government the control it sought to spend and tax until December 2021 without need of Parliamentary approval.

Another important power is held by the Trudeau Government. The authority to summons Parliament to an otherwise unscheduled sitting, and to set the agenda for such sitting. This constitutional power has been used to call the House and Senate to meet in order to debate spending measures previously announced by the Prime Minister from what Rex Murphy has called the “Tent of Commons” on the front steps of Rideau Cottage where Mr. Trudeau lives.

Thus, the question presented prior to the scheduled sitting on May 25 was whether the almost unbridled political power held by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet would result in a brief Rump Parliament, ending it on that day, or an extended Rump.

One influence of the new People’s Party of Canada, started by former Conservative leadership hopeful Maxime Bernier, is results in ridings it influenced in the 2019 election provided the Liberal Party with a large enough minority to secure a vote in the House with the support of any one of the Conservative, NDP or Bloc parties.

Support provided by the NDP on May 25 enabled the Trudeau Government to continue virtually unopposed until September 21. Parliament will not sit unless summonsed by the prime minister. The interests of a broad number of Canadians will not be represented in the House of Commons or Senate. The decisions of Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet will be unimpeded by Canada’s silent houses of Parliament. The special Covid-19 committee will meet in the House of Commons chamber, portraying the false image that Parliament is meeting. Smoke and mirrors? Or, bait and switch?

So, what can Canadians do?

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Former Leader of the Opposition Stockwell Day has said, in a democracy when we pray for those in authority it includes ‘we the people’ to whom our political leaders are accountable.

Canada’s democracy is still in the hands of the electorate.

Canadians can contact elected Members of Parliament and Senators in writing and by phone (not likely in person at this point because of emergency health measures) to express the plea that Parliament sit. It’s easy to find online the contact information for politicians you would like to have read your words, whether snail mail, email or social media. Use those words effectively, not just emotively.

You can reach parliamentarians through social media, but use it wisely. Beware the rabbit holes of unsubstantiated opinions and conspiracy theories, as well as the sin-trap of unrestrained expressions of anger. I have written more on that here.

There will likely soon be a petition on the parliamentary website providing formal opportunity to request Parliament’s return. Add your name. [Note: I won’t sign an e-petition to Parliament found elsewhere than ourcommons.ca as it is likely being used to collect personal information and may not be properly formatted to be admissible in Parliament.] [UPDATE: Link to petition e-2629]

While all provinces and territories have placed limits on numbers of people who may assemble, peaceful public demonstration requesting Parliament’s return is an option. I have shared more detailed thoughts on considerations for public demonstration here.

And Parliament itself? The Government has not presented a budget, so must call Parliament to sit before the end of June to consider expenditures required to keep government services operating. If the opposition parties vote against the Government’s proposal, the Government will be defeated and an election will follow. Of course, the result of an election would be a new Parliament of unknown composition. I’m confident the current measures would not have been undertaken by a majority government as it would have been unmistakably seen to be a power grab. Would a majority for one party or another result from a summer election?

Some regard the current situation as brilliant political gamesmanship by the minority Liberal Government, but even most journalists have come to recognize the situation as disdain for Parliament and Canada’s constitutional governance conventions.

The typical Canadian, however, pays little attention to politics (let alone parliamentary convention). 34% of eligible voters did not vote in 2019. What percentage of the 66% who did vote based their decision on factors other than proposals of the various parties to address issues facing the country? Always voted for a particular party, perhaps even as their parents before them? Voted based on impression of the leaders from social media or snippets in traditional media? Voted based on candidate’s appearance?

These and other questions remain.

Who engages with Canada’s democratic institutions? Which citizens participate in the candidate selection process? Who are, or will be, the candidates? Which Canadians do and will inform themselves? Who votes? We see minimal levels of commitment in all those areas despite efforts of government, media, political parties, and neighbours to encourage greater participation. Canada’s democracy is in the hands of the electorate. Those who participate determine who governs the nation.

Are there provisions in our constitution to declare our prime minister incompetent?

With the flow of information Canadians encounter about American politics, including provisions on competence and succession for their president, this is comprehensibly asked about Canada’s prime minister. The answer to the question is no. Political parties, however, have the authority to replace their leaders. It is possible for the governing party to replace its leader and thus replace the prime minister.

This suggests another action Canadians can take. Beginning with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, political power has been increasingly centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office. Parliamentarians have been subject to party discipline measures that inhibit to varying degrees their ability to represent constituents or to replace a leader. MP Michael Chong introduced procedural legislation intended to restore more authority to MPs, but it has been paid little attention. Citizens, however, can request that MPs exercise greater freedom to act in the interests of constituents over the interests of political parties.

Politics is supposed to be about people, and governance can be about serving people or about wielding power over them. Surprisingly, the two can co-exist. I know Members of Parliament who delight in serving their constituents. The seduction of power, however, particularly the importance of winning to hold on to power, may interfere with a servant’s heart.

Elected officials benefit from being occasionally reminded their responsibility is to look out for the best interests of all citizens, from sea to sea to sea – Indigenous, immigrant, and those of us Canadians who simply don’t know any other home, whatever our ethnic heritage.

Are there provisions in our constitution to have the prime minister investigated for treason?

While section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out the crime of high treason, Prime Minister Trudeau has (to my knowledge) not engaged in activity you will find listed there.

Six weeks after the 2008 election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in early December. His minority government was under threat from an agreement between the opposition Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties. As a result, the House of Commons was adjourned for a total of six days of scheduled sittings and returned on its scheduled date in January, at which time a new Speech from the Throne was presented. The Conservative minority governed two more years before the 2011 election.

People who disagreed with the Harper Government made claims of treason and expressed ‘apocalyptic’ statements about Canadian democracy similar to those being made from the other side of the political spectrum today.

Recently, for the second government in a row, some have been positing and posting their thoughts on history, suggesting current behaviour as mimicking that of Hitler’s national socialists in Germany or Mussolini’s national fascists in Italy. Voter disinterest and seizing control of the respective parliaments in Europe are alleged to be common indicators. Realistically, even if the current (or previous) Government had eyes set on absolute political control, Canada has constitutional protections and divisions of power in place that would prevent success; and, Canada lacks the military or police enforcement capacity for such an attempt to succeed.

Disagreement about politics or political tactics is not a signal that Canada’s democracy has collapsed or is in danger of collapsing, or that a prime minister is attempting to become fuhrer, duce or dictator.

Nonetheless, disregard, disrespect, or derision for institutions at the heart of our democracy, particularly the national Parliament, is disquieting.

Are there provisions in our constitution to force parliament to sit?”

Yes. Section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states,

There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.

That minimum standard has been met by Canada’s Parliament. The House has had 31 sitting days, and the Senate 17, so far in 2020. Only seven House sitting days (four for the Senate) have been held since Parliament rose on March 13, intending a temporary break to deal with Covid-19, scheduled to return on April 20. Three of those seven days were debate on the return of Parliament. The other four were to debate hundreds of billions of dollars in government borrowing and expenditures. All post-March 13 sittings have included Government use of closure to time-limit debate.

The House is scheduled to sit for four hours on June 17 to debate the projected expenditure of $190 billion dollars required to keep federal government services operational. The Senate will sit for two hours of debate if the bill is passed.

As noted above, even most traditional media journalists (covering the political spectrum from left to right) have caught on that what is taking place is a troubling disrespect for the democratic institution of Parliament and the responsible representation of the Canadian people for which we elect MPs.

So what’s the answer?

The answer to Canadians’ concerns is not the seeking of a constitutional loophole. The Trudeau Government has already gone that route.

The answer is not to blame the behaviour of politicians, or necessarily who is in the prime minister’s chair (although their ambitions and decisions are evident contributors to today’s predicament).

The answer is to be found in identifying who is participating in Canada’s democratic processes. Participation determines who sits in the seats of political leadership, and for how long. Our own involvement is key to what you and I can do to prevent this from happening again in Canada’s democracy beyond the current Rump Parliament.

Provincial and territorial governments are transitioning from health emergency measures based on caution to reopening measures based on trust in the citizenry. How will Christians respond?

A foundation for understanding the Church within and outside the walls of the sanctuary is the three commandments emphasized by Jesus:

Love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength (Mark 12:30).

Love our neighbours as ourselves (Mark 12:31).

Love one another, for by this the world will know we are Christ’s disciples (John 13:34-35).

Provincial health emergency measures have not changed the truth of those directives. The expression of all three for Christians, congregations, and other ministries, have for weeks been adjusted by the temporary closing of buildings.

How might those three commandments inform us in the current and coming days as we transition from healthy isolation to what one hopes will be healthy reopening?

Our love for God will inform our desire to act for Him. Paul refers to us as being citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20), functioning as ambassadors of reconciliation on earth (1 Corinthians 5:20). Jesus’ ministry of inviting people to be reconciled with God has been entrusted to us – the Church, the Body of Christ – as His representatives. As ambassadors for Jesus, we are called to live and behave in a manner that both honours God and appeals on His behalf to others.

God’s love for us inspires us to similarly show love, grace, and kindness toward our neighbours, whether they follow Him or not. It’s kind of like combining the golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12) with forgive us, Lord, as we forgive others (Matthew 6:12). Love for our neighbours suggests a few things to bear in mind in the context of the current health and reopening measures.

Masks. There is ongoing discussion about whether to wear a mask that covers nose and mouth when in shared spaces. The conversation involves two kinds of masks.

Properly worn, medical N95s protect against droplets getting into the nose or mouth of the wearer, as well as preventing the wearer from spreading droplets. Medical N95s are most needed by health care and other professionals who have frequent close proximity interaction with a variety of people who are not healthy. N95s are also worn by carpenters and farmers who need to protect their lungs against fine particles such as wood dust or grain dust. Current supply concerns suggest N95s be held for those most in need. As supply is available, I can envision pastors, chaplains and other Christian caregivers potentially wearing N95s for a time as their in-person contacts increase.

Surgical style masks protect against droplets being transmitted by the wearer onto others. That’s why surgeons wear them! Often, for hours on end. Whether disposable or washable, these masks cover nose and mouth to serve the purpose of protecting others against the wearer breathing or speaking ‘moistly’ on them. The evidence suggests many infected with Covid-19 may either exhibit mild or no symptoms, which means we are all potential spreaders. Did you know that in Canada church-related gatherings were at the heart of significant super-spreader events?

A church in Calgary, AB legally hosted under fifty people for a missionary report. 80% of attendees, including two who worked at a long term care home and one who worked at a meat processing plant were infected. Within days Covid-19 spread into the long term care home and the meat packing plant, wreaking havoc in both as it had in the congregation.

A funeral held in St. John’s, NL a few days before gathering size was restricted resulted in 44 people testing positive for Covid-19, the largest outbreak on the island.

Similar stories have been reported from religious gatherings in other countries, including several infected in Texas as the result of a priest who did not know he was Covid-19 positive leading mass and sharing communion.

History and medicine suggest a second wave is likely. It’s best to be prepared, not afraid, and take appropriate precautions as part of our witness for Christ.

Some churches will continue with only online gatherings for a while after buildings are permitted to reopen, particularly if the permissible size for gatherings would be awkward. For example, in Alberta congregations can gather (respecting distancing requirements) in groups up to fifty or 30% of capacity, whichever is less. Large congregations have decided to continue meeting online.

Some churches will continue with drive-in services. When passing food and drink is permitted for places of worship, perhaps drive-thru communion will be added.

Other church properties may facilitate open air gatherings.

As people who care for and about other people, I anticipate Christians who are able will wear a mask, not because we accept one side in the mask debate but because our first concern is loving protection for others. We’ll be gracious to those who are not able to wear masks, such as asthmatics, autistics and others with medical conditions that make mask wearing untenable or dangerous. A Christian sister believes God has told her not to wear a mask. Responsibly, for the well-being of others, she has decided not to attend places where masks are required or recommended.

Love for others and ourselves makes it reasonable to posit we will continue to maintain physical distancing measures and wash our hands regularly.

These simple actions may be intended to protect neighbours or to protect our brothers and sisters in Christ. It seems, at least for the time being, masks have become part of our witness for Jesus.

But there is more to our witness than masks, two meters of separation, and hand washing.

Many churches and ministries serve their neighbours, and have continued doing so throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. They operate food banks, provide shopping for seniors, and more – for non-religionists, co-religionists, or both.

But what about that kind of love for one another within the Church that lets the world know we are Christ’s disciples? What might we Christians do that is directed toward recognizing the unique relationship we have as parts of the one Body of Christ in witness to the world?

It has been a privilege to participate in a number of online gatherings with leaders of varying capacities within Church and government, and I’m a lifelong follower of news reports for Canada and the rest of the world. Here are some take-a-ways on how we might love one another in a way that witnesses to our discipleship.

Some in the Church are struggling through this emergency; spiritually, emotionally, physically. We are redeemed, not flawless. Reach out. Check in on a friend, or be the one who asks for a little support yourself. Phone calls, texts, emails, and video, front lawn and window visits have made a difference, and still can. Running errands for those who are unable to do so for themselves can be a lifeline. People notice.

Two months in, some pastors are still struggling with technology connection opportunities. It can be discouraging to deal with tech hiccups when others seem to have studio quality production. A little help from those who’ve got it figured out will be appreciated. Offer it. Check in on your brothers and sisters in leadership.

Some congregations are struggling financially. Pastors in need would value the help of others who have successfully applied for available temporary government funding, or those who have set up e-donation opportunities. A few would also benefit from financial support made available by congregations that are not struggling. Your congregation might have limited extra to help out, but maybe several congregations working together might combine to keep the doors open for a new or historic congregation or ministry in your neighbourhood or serving another.

On the global level, remember the persecuted (Hebrews 13:3) and remember the poor (Galatians 2:10).

In many nations Christians live day-to-day on whatever work they can find or what little is made from being able to sell items along a roadside or at a small market. Many of these opportunities have been closed down due to emergency health measures. Support from other parts of the Body of Christ has become essential to survival, and a witness to their neighbours.

There are ministries that have ‘feet on the ground’ in these countries, and emergency response funds in place to help in this time of need, whether serving the persecuted, the poor, or both. You can check with the Canadian offices of Voice of the Martyrs, Open Doors, Partners International, The Salvation Army, and more. Your own congregation or denomination may have international contacts as well. Now is a good time to make a contribution. [Did you know that when Paul first implemented Sunday collections within the Church it was for the support of brothers and sisters in Jerusalem who had been cast out of their places of worship, their places of work, and their homes (1 Corinthians 16:1-3)?]

Vitally, pray. Pray to the Lord God whom we love with our heart and soul and mind and strength. Pray about how to best love your particular neighbours. Pray about how to participate in loving one another in the Body of Christ.

Pray.

And, act. May we show our faith through our ambassadorial good deeds and our good deeds toward our brothers and sisters (James 2:18).

As governments restore trust to the citizenry who elected them, it’s up to each one of us to be a trustworthy citizen, and a trustworthy ambassador for Him whom we trust has also established our citizenship in heaven.

“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3)

Whether one considers Canada a constitutional democracy or a parliamentary democracy, Canadian legislatures (federally, Parliament) have final authority in the areas assigned them under Canada’s Constitution. They also have the open door of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to authorize override of rights beyond objection by the courts, knowing such a legislative decision is likely to be the topic of public debate in their next election, if not before.

In the current health crisis, the federal Government has not declared a national emergency. Under the federal Emergencies Act, declaration of a national emergency would require: a report to Parliament on prior consultation with provincial leaders; approval of the Government’s declaration by Parliament within seven sitting days; supervision by a Parliamentary committee; review and re-approval by Parliament every ninety days (otherwise the emergency powers lapse); and, at the conclusion of the emergency, a parliamentary inquiry as well as an independent inquiry into the decisions made by Government during the emergency.

In the absence of a federal declaration, each province has declared a provincial health emergency. Health care is constitutionally provincial jurisdiction.

On 13 March, Parliament decided to extend its Spring Break in light of developing concerns about Covid-19. It was anticipated that not returning for the two week sitting following Spring Break and prior to the Easter Break would address concerns about recommended health isolation measures and Members of Parliament (MPs) would return on 20 April.

Unknowns about Covid-19, and emergency measures implemented by provincial and territorial governments, most based on recommendations of the federal government, fashioned a different shape to the crisis than anticipated by MPs on 13 March.

The Prime Minister took to hosting a daily press conference outside his residence coincident with Parliament rising. Each day he announced emergency expenditures. But, his Government lacked the constitutional authority to authorize spending without approval by Parliament.

However, the Government does hold the constitutional power to call for Parliament to sit. It used that power to call a single-agenda-item single-day sitting to pass the emergency expenditures previously announced. In preparation, all parties agreed to attend in limited numbers to satisfy: constitutional quorum requirements; existing seat allocation in the House of Commons; and, physical distancing recommendations. The Government’s legislation unexpectedly included proposed emergency powers to tax, spend and govern unopposed until December 2021. Using the constitutional authority of Parliament, opposition parties forced the Government to prune the new and extensive powers from the legislation before passing it.

Within days, additional front-step press conference commitments by the Prime Minister made it clear Parliament would have to meet again to consider additional announced-before-authorized expenditures. The Government called for Parliament to return on the Saturday of Easter Weekend. The inconveniently timed one day sitting resulted in increasing the emergency financial package to nearly $180 billion. The second bill, again needed to be pruned by Parliament before it could pass.

By the time the House returned as scheduled on 20 April, the Liberal Government had cut a deal with the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) and New Democratic Party (NDP) to suspend Parliament. MPs would instead meet in a Committee of the Whole dedicated to Covid-19, in person on Wednesdays and by use of technology on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The Official Opposition was painted as being obstructive because Conservatives insisted the House of Commons meet in person three days a week, observing precautions in place for fewer MPs to attend (including ongoing communications with caucus members not present in the House), until the necessary technology was in place for the House to meet, not as Committee of the Whole but as the elected House of Commons.

The Committee of the Whole motion was passed, with only Conservatives voting against.

In debate on the motion to adjourn the House for Committee of the Whole, it was presented that some provinces required quarantine for anyone returning from out of province, even within Canada. This, it was argued, would make it unfair for MPs to be asked to travel from and to those provinces if required to physically attend Parliament. It was pointed out that most provinces and territories also had orders in place restricting ‘unnecessary’ travel.

The Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Scheer stated:

Millions of Canadians are going to work every single day to help their neighbours get through this pandemic. Parliamentarians should be doing the same thing… surely we can do our duty to uphold the bedrock of our democracy.

That is the issue: democracy. Canadians have the right to be represented… Their concerns must be heard and their questions must be answered.

These remarks were countered by Government MPs expressing concern for the health of the approximately fifty staff required in order for the up to three dozen MPs to meet in the House of Commons chamber.

BQ leader Yves-Francois Blanchet stated, “I sincerely doubt that Canadians and Quebeckers are interested in seeing a bunch of parliamentarians talking to other parliamentarians about parliamentary matters to figure out how to fix them as parliamentarians. Even I am not very interested in that.”

Perhaps, he was right. Most Canadians certainly did not fully comprehend what was about to happen. The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, did not. His comments in the debate suggest he thought Parliament would be meeting when in fact the motion authorized a House of Commons’ committee.

MP Paul Manly stated the Green Party position:

Front-line workers are living apart from their loved ones during this pandemic. A friend who is a nurse in my community has two young boys. She has not been able to hug her sons or spend time with them in person for weeks. It is a situation that is echoed in thousands of homes across the country.

Front-line workers are making huge sacrifices to protect our communities and to keep essential services operating. That is why it is imperative that the rest of us, including those of us in the House, respect their sacrifices by continuing to follow the directives of health authorities.

There you have it. MPs receive an allowance for accommodations in Ottawa. Most have apartments, condos or houses in the nation’s capital. Willing to recognize the sacrifice being made by front-line workers, a majority were not prepared to make similar sacrifice for the sake of accountable governance. MPs were also unprepared to ask a complement of staff, a smaller number than required at most grocery stores that encounter thousands of shoppers each day, to take precautions and come to work.

The Prime Minister did not get the almost unlimited powers he had sought on 20 March. But his minority government did secure $180 billion dollars of borrowed money to back up the one-a-day new spending announcements made at the front-steps-of-Rideau-Cottage press conferences he has staged for nearly two months.

Until at least 25 May Parliament is toothless. In its place Canadians have a committee that can make noise, but without the bite of Parliament. The Speaker sits as committee chair, but cannot preside as Speaker because it is not the House of Commons. The Senate does not sit unless the House does.

Save for the House sitting on 20 April, the Prime Minister has controlled when the House and Senate will sit, and what will be on their respective agendas, since 13 March.

On 22 April, the Prime Minister announced $9 billion more in spending for students, then called the House to sit for a couple of hours, again with a single-item agenda, after the in-person Committee of the Whole on 29 April to pass the necessary legislation. The House, after all, is still required to sit in person. Which party would vote against cash for over 2 million voters under age 25? Still, opposition parties for the third time were compelled to amend the legislation proposed by the Government before it could pass. Mr. Trudeau called the Senate’s skeleton crew to put two hours into the same bill so the money would flow.

That brings us to consideration of the first Rump Parliament.

On 6 December 1648 control of the English Parliament, the Parliament which had been conceived four centuries earlier in Magna Carta, was appropriated by leaders from the wealthy gentry – those who could live entirely off of inherited money or the income from largely inherited land or business. They were able to bar from the House of Commons MPs unwilling to try the king for treason. (By doing so, they also increased their own authority to tax and to spend.) They did away with a disagreeable House of Lords (the Canadian equivalent to shuttering the Senate) in order to pass legislation authorizing the King’s trial. Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649. Having neutered Parliament, so that it would only do their will, the Rump Parliament then settled in to hold on to power for as long as possible.

As mentioned yesterday, a long-time lawyer friend, and former MP, Stephen Woodworth was the first person (but not the last) I heard refer to Canada’s current situation as a Rump Parliament, a parliament neutered by the constraints of the agreement to function as Committee of the Whole. Except when summonsed by the gentry to approve expenditures already announced, Canada’s Parliament is currently closed.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer announced that Government decisions announced since Parliament rose on 13 March result in a projected deficit of more than $250 billion for the current fiscal year. There is no functioning Parliament to authoritatively hold the Government to account for that unprecedented volume and speed of expenditure and increased debt. The Government has not presented a budget to Parliament for the current fiscal year, defeat on which would, by constitutional convention, also defeat the Government.

By not declaring a federal emergency the Prime Minister has positioned himself to spend without Parliamentary oversight. He has also avoided the mandatory post-emergency inquiries integrated into the Emergencies Act.

The supremacy of Canada’s Parliament recognized in the constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on 9 April (see part one), is absent. Almost all of Parliament’s constitutional powers have been transferred into the hands of the Government of the day, a minority government that would otherwise be held to high account in House and Senate on a daily basis.

An unchallenged Prime Minister commits daily to ever new expenditures, domestic and international, seemingly based on concerns identified in polling or in media stories from a few days before the announcement – or, some say, internationally, in pursuit of a U.N. Security Council seat.

Last week, an order-in-council (a cabinet decision made into law) was issued on a matter that would normally have been debated in both the House of Commons and the Senate.

Simultaneous with the Rump Parliament, Canada’s Premiers bear the responsibility of making the difficult, even unpopular, decisions about life, death, and re-opening the economy. The federal government has positioned itself to act as only advisor, an influential advisor, to those provincial decisions, in similar fashion to the World Health Organization advising national governments on recommended action.

Some consider it impressive political manoeuvering by a minority government. Not so another lawyer and former MP, former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, who has written, “Canadians deserve more than a show, they deserve accountability and respect for the institutions that have made Canada such a great country.”

Monday 25 May will be an important sitting day for Canada’s House of Commons. Either Parliament will return by decision of Canada’s elected Members or a short Rump could become a long Rump. Will the Government push for the status quo until after the previously scheduled summer break, seeking to extend its newfound power until late September? Could it possibly make the Rump last until Mr. Trudeau’s previously sought December 2021? After all, the Prime Minister does remind us almost daily that it will be eighteen to twenty-four months before this crisis resolves.

Rumping a Parliament (if I may use the noun as a verb) serves the purpose of holding onto political power; avoiding political and constitutional responsibility for as long as possible. It does not sincerely serve the public governance interests of democracy. Instead, it makes resistance to Prime Ministerial edict futile.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” – 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV)

“Resistance is futile” was the stated message of Star Trek’s Borg collective when it encountered another civilization. The words conveyed a sense of the Borg’s victorious efforts to either destroy or assimilate into the collective any sentient life it encountered. The repetition of the phrase struck fear into the hearts and minds of opposition lifeforms made aware the Borg were approaching.

The resistance is futile position is also assumed by opposing sides in a debate, largely semantic, about whether Canada is a constitutional democracy (sometimes styled a constitutional monarchy), in which the constitution rules supreme, or a parliamentary democracy, in which Parliament has the final word.

In recent weeks the question as to whether Parliament or the constitution is supreme has been answered in differing ways by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Canadian Parliament itself.

Constitutionally, it was not until the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) was added by an amendment to Canada’s constitution in 1982 that the Supreme Court of Canada positioned itself to assume authority over the decisions of Canadian legislatures. Prior to 17 April 1982, consideration of legislative actions by the Court was most often limited to assessing whether legislation had been appropriately enacted under federal or provincial jurisdiction, based on the categories stated in the British North America Act (now known as the Constitution Act, 1867) and its pre-1982 amendments.

In those almost forgotten days, the Supreme Court also recognized and set the standard of precedent for decisions of the common law and civil law courts of Canada, reinforcing legal stability. But it was Supreme in name as the highest court in the land and not considered by anyone to be the nation’s highest recognized authority, constitutional or otherwise. While the Court now routinely comments on social policy or public opinion and shapes its decisions accordingly, in the time before the Charter such consideration was the purview of the elected legislatures or parliaments, provincial and federal.

The Supreme Court appropriated its new ‘higher’ power under the Charter at a time when Canadians were pushing back from long held confidence in religious and political institutions. I summarized the result in earlier writing:

Canadians, whether they have read it or not, increasingly place their faith in the Charter. To do so is to also place one’s hope in the institution that interprets it, just as the priests of old used to interpret the Bible for the people, the Book not being available in the common language of the day.

Today, Canadians routinely look to the courts to protect us, both from actions of our neighbours and from acts of Parliament, provincial legislatures and municipal councils. The Charter does not apply in disputes with our neighbours. It does apply between citizens and our various levels of government, all of which have publicly accountable elected representatives. Although elected government bodies routinely defer to decisions of the courts, that’s not mandatory in how our constitution is designed. That oft disregarded constitutional reality is something the Supreme Court of Canada quietly acknowledged on 9 April. No fanfare. No media coverage. Few noticed.

On 9 April, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for appeal in the case styled Ichrak Nourel Hak, National Council of Canadian Muslims and Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Québec. The sought after appeal was from a procedural decision of the Quebec courts in the first case brought to challenge the Act respecting the laicity of the State enacted by Quebec’s National Assembly on 16 June 2019, an Act better known to most as Bill 21. Hak and the others were seeking to stay (an order to put the legislation on hold) the Quebec legislation until their full case might be presented and heard in court as a challenge to the Act’s constitutionality.

The legislation, however, pre-emptively invoked section 33 of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause,’ which reads:

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Section 2 of the Charter states Canadians’ fundamental freedoms. Sections 7 to 15 outline our legal and equality rights. The Quebec Court of Appeal also considered section 28 of the Charter, which is not included in the scope of section 33. Section 28 guarantees equal application of rights and freedoms to “male and female persons.”

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada effectively deferred to the majority decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal (CA). Assessing the use of section 33, the Quebec CA noted, at least in regard to the application for a stay, “it is not for the courts to interfere in the legislature’s choice to define the public interest as it sees fit.”

The CA was cautious to limit the decision to the application before it that was seeking the interim order of a stay, noting a full constitutional challenge to the law is still to be heard. The court opted to accept the law as constitutional, at least until such time as the fully presented and argued challenge to the law is decided. In declining the stay the judges determined that irreparable harm would not likely result from enforcing the law before such a challenge concluded. The CA stated:

This is not a matter of endorsing the Act respecting the laicity of the State, nor should the dismissal of the appeal be confused with any opinion on the part of the Court for or against this Act, which has inflamed passions on both sides. The opinion of the judge [who heard the initial application] as a citizen does not form part of the legal debate. Rather, the exercise here consists in adjudicating whether or not to suspend the Act based on the applicable legal framework.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to not hear the appeal means the decision of the Quebec CA stands as final.

On one hand, the result is disappointing because there is no question about the compromise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the legislation, which will likely cause harm although, in the court’s opinion, not irreparable harm. On the other hand, the decision is heartening because the importance of respecting the supremacy of legislatures – provincial and federal – within Canadian democracy has been affirmed.

The acceptance of this non-emergency-related pre-emptive use of section 33 is troubling, in that any legislature might consider the use of the notwithstanding clause in a way that might block the courts from effectively exercising their role to protect citizen’s rights against unnecessary intrusion by government. This concern is mitigated somewhat by consideration that the legal context is a decision about the request for a stay. Historically, Canadian courts have given the benefit of the doubt to government on requests to stay legislation, unless evidence of irreparable harm or the potential for irreparable harm is presented to and accepted by the court.

This recognition of the supremacy of Canada’s elected governors by Quebec’s superior court, court of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada leads to my second point.

It is of great concern in our democracy when the authority of legislatures or Parliament to suitably and fully assess and define the public interest in governance is compromised. It is a concern at any time, and most particularly in a time of recognized emergency. When a parliament is not sitting or able to sit, its authority is effectively abandoned into the hands of the government of the day without constitutional or parliamentary accountability. The people are then no longer properly represented in our democracy – whether one considers it a constitutional democracy or a parliamentary democracy.

In Canada, the right to representation can be traced back to Magna Carta in the twelfth century, and aboriginal councils likely before that. The one form of governance was recognized peacefully (but not without prior rebellion, a story for another day) in the British North America Act (Constitution Act, 1867). The second form was more belatedly given recognition in the Constitution Act, 1982.

In the thirteenth century, Magna Carta introduced a fledgling form of parliament and constrained the capacity of any one person, the reigning monarch, to tax, spend or make new laws.

Politics, whether in church leadership or national governance, is supposed to be about people. Serving the people. Looking out for the best interests of all constituents. But too often it’s more about power than governance. Part of our sinful nature is the desire to be the greatest by having dominance over others rather than by serving them

Which leads us to consideration of thoughts on England’s Rump Parliament of 1648 and observations on Canada’s Rump Parliament of 2020.

A lawyer friend, and former MP, was the first person (but not the last) I heard refer to Canada’s current situation as a Rump Parliament, a parliament neutered by the agreement to function as Committee of the Whole for discussion of Covid-19 measures only, with a quorum of seven members, which is one-third the constitutional twenty required as quorum for the House of Commons. The Senate stands adjourned until the House returns. Parliament is not sitting, except at the call of Government to pass legislation required to spend money already promised to Canadians by the Prime Minister in his Covid-19 initiated morning press conferences.

With Easter days away and recent announcements that public events are cancelled until June 30, Canada Day (July 1) will either be a large, government-approved nationwide party or a day of basement-studio broadcasts and private family barbecues. Social media is littered with debate about whether this weekend is a time for civil disobedience to Covid-19 restrictions in order to gather for Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday celebrations.

In the pages ahead, I hope to both inform and challenge your perspective on citizenship as a Christian. Like much of twenty-first-century Christianity, you and I have been influenced by the changing society in which we live. What if we could reverse that influence so that instead of changes in society influencing us, as Christians you and I influenced the changes in society?

Church in Society – Chapter Twelve – The Church, Politics

At this point, I think it’s appropriate to reflect on some basic principles of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is generally considered to be the publicly expressed refusal to obey certain laws, regulations, or commands of the government in order to draw attention and seek change to government policy that is considered morally offensive. It is not usually a rejection of the political system as a whole.

The biblical principle of submission to government authorities is repeatedly stated in the New Testament (Matthew 22:20–22, Romans 13:1–7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13–14). It is reflected in Western democracy’s expectation that citizens will generally adhere to the laws of the land—from traffic laws to the prohibition on taking the life of another person. This social contract is crucial for us to live together as a society.

But what if laws are inherently evil or harmful to our common good? And how does one assess whether laws are good or evil?

For Christians in Canada, our first public effort in dealing with a harmful law is to seek to amend or replace it using democratic means. Similarly, we approach unjust laws in other nations first through diplomatic means.

Civil disobedience may be justified when all other peaceful options have been tried, and failed.

A prominent American example of twentieth-century civil disobedience led by a Christian pastor stands out. Martin Luther King Jr. led non-authorized marches and other acts of civil disobedience in pursuit of change to American laws that discriminated against black Americans. King was imprisoned for his efforts and had known that was a possibility before his first engagement. He led a massive march and rally in Washington, D.C. which ultimately resulted in passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1968, which became law just days after his assassination. He knew the risks. He pursued the goal.

On what basis did this Christian leader, who had an earned doctorate in Christian theology, make the decision to break the law in the ways he did?

There is a biblical basis for using civil disobedience, particularly to oppose policies that dehumanize, oppress, or brutalize people. Here are some examples of civil disobedience found in Scripture:

the Hebrew midwives saved the lives of Hebrew boys whom Pharaoh had ordered to be put to death at birth (Exodus 1:15–22, the story of Moses’ birth);

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey Nebuchadnezzar’s law requiring all citizens to worship a golden statue (Daniel 3, the fiery furnace story);

Daniel, one of three presidents in Babylon, refused to pray only to King Darius for a period of thirty days (Daniel 6, the lion’s den story);

the wise men disobeyed Herod’s directive to return and tell him where Jesus was born, having had it revealed to them that Herod intended to kill the child (Matthew 2:1–12); and

the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), in which Jesus endorsed breaking the religious law to help someone in dire need.

John H. Redekop identifies seven considerations for a Christian community before engaging in civil disobedience. I pose them here as questions:

Has the religious community made a careful and balanced assessment of the situation, including the risks of potential harm that might result from the civil disobedience?

Is what’s at stake of great moral seriousness?

Has a specific goal been clearly identified that is indisputably of benefit to the common good?

Have all other reasonable steps been exhausted?

Will the behaviour planned to challenge the policy in question still demonstrate a general respect for government and the principles of lawful behaviour?

Will only suitable means, that make sense to non-sympathetic observers, be used?

Are participants prepared to accept the consequences for breaking the law that may be imposed as a result of their civil disobedience?

These questions address the situation in which Dr. King accepted the responsibility and risks of becoming leader of a movement.

Two well-known first-century Christian leaders engaged in principled civil disobedience. When ordered to stop teaching about Jesus, Peter and John stated, “We must obey Godrather than men” (Acts 5:29). This was not a general statement authorizing Christians to engage in civil disobedience when preaching is restricted by government. It was the resolution of a genuine dilemma between obedience to God for the good of others and obedience to authorities. These men were numbered among the disciples when Jesus told them to be His witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). They had been in prison for doing so and were prepared to go back in order to obey Jesus’ directive to them.

Civil disobedience usually takes one of two peaceful forms. Direct civil disobedience is an actual violation of an offending law, usually to bring it to consideration by the public, government, and the courts. Indirect civil disobedience is an act, such as a rally or a march that may break traffic laws or municipal permit bylaws, intended to draw attention to the offending law.

As Christians, our participation in politics starts and ends with prayer. Pray for government officials. Pray about our participation. Pray as we participate. And then pray for government officials, that those in positions of authority would look out for the best interests of all citizens, including Christian citizens.